Background
Arthur Czyszczon was elected to the Treasure Island City Commission in March 2025. A recall petition initiated against him in December 2025 alleged misfeasance based on his use of a city-issued cellphone to send unsolicited, non-city-related text messages to a constituent. The petition was signed by Susan Lovelady but did not designate the recall committee chair within the petition itself. A cover letter submitted with the petition identified Lovelady as chair.
After the required signatures were certified, the city clerk prepared a “Recall Petition and Defense” that identified Lovelady as chair. Czyszczon sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing among other things that the original petition violated section 100.361, Florida Statutes. The circuit court found substantial compliance and denied his request to halt the recall process. The Second District reviewed that nonfinal order as an appeal from the denial of an injunction.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District held that section 100.361 requires strict compliance. Its mandatory language required the recall petition itself to designate a specific person as committee chair, and the statute neither authorized substantial compliance nor excused noncompliance based on a lack of prejudice. The cover letter accompanying the petition did not cure the omission because Lovelady was not identified as chair in the petition itself.
The court also held that adding Lovelady’s name to the later Recall Petition and Defense violated the prohibition against amending a petition after filing and failed to preserve the originally signed petition as required. Even under a substantial-compliance standard, the defect was consequential because initial signers could not identify who was leading the recall effort, and Czyszczon initially sued the wrong person as chair.
Czyszczon satisfied all four requirements for temporary injunctive relief: irreparable harm, no adequate remedy at law, likelihood of success on the merits, and consistency with the public interest. The court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a temporary injunction and conduct further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Key Takeaways
- Florida’s municipal-recall statute requires strict compliance with its mandatory procedural requirements.
- A cover letter submitted with a recall petition cannot substitute for the statute’s requirement that the petition itself designate the recall committee chair.
- A clerk cannot cure the omission by adding the chair’s name to the Recall Petition and Defense because the original petition may not be amended after filing.
Why It Matters
The decision makes clear that courts must enforce the procedural safeguards governing efforts to remove duly elected municipal officials before their terms expire. Recall proponents must follow the statute as written, including identifying their committee chair in the petition circulated to voters.
The ruling also confirms that temporary injunctive relief is available before an unlawful recall election occurs. Requiring an official and the public to undergo an election based on a defective petition would create harms that could not be adequately repaired afterward.